Sex Nerd Sandra #22: Awesome Ancient Sex

Share:

Dr. Christopher Ryan, co-author of Sex at Dawn, blows Sandra’s mind with the origins of human sexual behavior. Dave joins us briefly to vibrate our minds. Topics: Why our sexuality is about more than reproduction, a shocking truth about birth control, and why Doctor Who fans are so sexy!

Tags

Comments

i listened to this podcast because my daughter recommended this website, and because i really enjoyed reading Sex at Dawn. nothing new was offered here, and i probably wouldn’t click to listen to another podcast. i think this interview would have been vastly improved by the avoidance of flirtation, or at least the removal of the flirty parts in the interview. it was not professional.

I love the Agriculture –…–> WAR! figure that’s in the book.
Wonder if I’m going to find a Civilization –….–> WAR!!!!! figure later on, but I fear I’m already past most of the civ. bashing. So far, the book has been very entertaining.

I’ve concluded that Dr. Ryan is a magnificent bastard. He has consciously placed several traps in this interview that allow him to answer any critique like this: “Had you READ the book, you’d know that I mean something completely different from what I actually say.”

Example: in my previous quemment I wagged my finger at his use of the design concept while talking about bio-evolution and nature. In the book, of course, there’s a foot note that basically says “Oh, we use the word ‘design’ all the time but we don’t really *mean* design”. He might as well have introduced himself like this : “Hey Sandra, I’ll just call you ‘Sexy’ from now on but I really don’t mean to imply that I find you attractive in any way. So, let’s start the interview, Sexy!”

The whole thing reeks of manipulation and for me, that just ruins a message that might be perfectly good.

This was a really good episode and I am going to pick up Sex at Dawn asap. I also need to listen to it again because there were a bunch of things I wanted to quemment about, but I’ve forgotten what they were.

When I saw the subject, I had a feeling someone would bring up bonobos. Whenever there is an internet appeal to a more promiscuous “natural” sex patterns for people, bonobos are invoked. If bonobos didn’t exist, the internet would have to invent them.

I dunno, Dr. Ryan seems to think that his prescriptions would result in a happier society. While they would result in more happiness for a small percentage of men who would get sex with more women, they would also mean the number of sexual partners for most men would fall from 1 to 0. He is talking about a world where a few men do most of the fathering and have most of the heterosexual intercourse.

So… at which point in this episode does either one of you actually try to avoid the naturalistic fallacy as promised?

I remember Ryan telling us near the end that “there’s a lot of wisdom in human nature” but leaving us wondering what kind of wisdom he has in mind here. Same with the “life we were designed to live”; what is this life we were designed to live according to you? And how will it magically erase disease, chronic stress, digestive disorders, ED, etc. as you imply in your next statement? Enlighten me!

And seriously, it frustrates me to find someone with a doctor’s degree using language that implies a fucking designer in the dumb process that is biological evolution. I think there’s absolutely no place for fairy tales in science, no matter if your field is psychology or theoretical physics:-[

And is this glorious human nature the same nature we happily insult every single day with our agriculture, clothing, medicine, electronics, etc.?

You two seem to absolutely love the idea that affection is given or denied based on a vague estimation of ones’s genetic health. My guess is that it’s simply super-inviting to picture yourself on the winning side of bio-evolution, isn’t it?